I'm asking within the abstraction of the game rules, not what is practically obvious in an actual game.
While my opponent is looking at the top four cards I can tell that those cards are the top four and not any other 4. I think it should follow, then, that among those 4 I could also tell which of them is the top, 2nd down, etc. Why not?
If I can...
If the actions are simultaneous the game goes from the top 4 cards being looked at in one moment and the next moment one card is exiled with the other three on the bottom of the library. It this case it makes sense that I would not be able to tell which card was chosen, even if I knew which card was top, 2nd, 3rd, 4th during the looking.
If the actions are sequential, though, and there is a moment where the exiled card has been chosen and the other 3 are still on top of the library, what prevents me from keep track of which of the 4 cards are the 3 cards that remain?
I'm still unclear why the opponent should not know which of the 4 cards is exiled. Not looking at the face of the card, but if it was top, 2nd, 3rd, 4th card down. Leave revealing top of library effects out of it. When hideaway triggers can I not distinguish between the 4 cards at all? How would I be able, then, to tell that my opponent is looking at the top 4 cards and not 4 cards from random locations throughout the library?
So in all cases, regardless of what cards are revealed/known, opponent will know if was the top, 2nd down, 3rd down or 4th down card that was chosen before you put the rest on bottom? Or is it only when the top card is revealed that they can destinguish between revealed vs. could be any of the not revealed?
I have an additional question. If someone plays a Glorybringer and exerts it when attacking can I play an instant spell such as fireball to kill it before the exerted ability would occur to prevent the targeted exert ability damage or would that ability still play out. Also what if I played a card like "Ovinize". Would that prevent the exerted ability?
No. Once it attacks exerted the ability is independent of the source. You would have to act before your opponent attacked, before you knew if they were going to exert or not.
I see what you're saying, but when you take that stance to its logical conclusion, one would then determine that using game states to determine the winner of a game is an outside-the-game method.
No, I disagree. A conversation and discussion about the current game state, likely future game states, who needs it more, and any number of other considerations are all possible and legal. The bright and clear line gets crossed when you and your opponent conspire to determine the winner by mutual deferment to a chance event.
Speaking of logical conclusions, though, the line of this thread is only remotely a discussion in game three, time called, neither player can afford a draw scenarios. Consider if these methods were instead used to determine match wins for game one, round one, of a GP. Instead of playing out their games say half the matches decided to do land/non-land or some other method and go get more breakfast. What if they all did? That's no longer a magic tournament. That's a problem.
I can only see reference to one type of improper way to determine the outcome of a game and that's if it's an outside-the-game method (including using illegal actions within the game), meaning other in-game information should be an appropriate way to determine a winner.
It comes down to how we interpret "outside-the-game method." If you are using the components of the game, the objects in game, actions you take during the game, etc. and attribute to them context, abilities, consequences that they do not and should not have within that game of magic, then those abilities, consequences, etc., that you and your opponent have agreed to imbue them with, are outside-the-game. The fact that drawing and revealing a land/non-land is something that can happen legally within the context of a game is not relevant. The ramifications you have assigned to that action are not part of the game of magic.
I would still not be comfortable using any of these random methods. Having a conversation about who is more likely to win or who gets the most value out of the win seem to be one animal. Both players agreeing to make the decision by some arbitrary or chance method is something else. I'm not sure that finding "in-game" indicators on which to base the arbitrary/chance decision takes it out of a grey area.
If both players were determined to do this, I expect it would be hard for a judge. Maybe they really do think that the likely outcome of the rest of the game would hinge on weather or not a player draws a land on turn 5 of extra turns.
At the same time, though, if one player made such a proposition, unsolicited, to me, and I called a judge claiming that my opponent had proposed to determine the result of the match illegally, could a Judge possibly find no violation? I'm not sure that any amount of "but this is technically within the letter of the rules" would convince me that my opponent's proposition, by any of these methods, was something other than offering to randomly determine the result of the match.
Is there any recourse if a legal agreed upon method of deciding which player will concede is then not honored after the result? If I legally draw and reveal the land card that my opponent had agreed to scoop to I don't think there is anything in the rules stopping them from changing their mind and insisting on a draw.
This forum is for specific rules questions. The answers are supposed to be limited to only that.
The scope of your questions may be too broad to be effectively answered in this forum.
Nether Shadow and other creatures can enter play from the graveyard. Stinkweed Imp and other cards with the "Dredge" mechanic put cards into the graveyard. Flayer of the Hatebound kills the opponent without attacking.
02.51. Dredge
702.51a Dredge is a static ability that functions only while the card with dredge is in a player’s graveyard. “Dredge N” means “As long as you have at least N cards in your library, if you would draw a card, you may instead put N cards from the top of your library into your graveyard and return this card from your graveyard to your hand.”
702.51b A player with fewer cards in his or her library than the number required by a dredge ability can’t put any of them into his or her graveyard this way.
Ok, how about this: I have cast quarantine field exiling my opponent's telepathy and their courser of kruphix. My opponent destroys the Quarantine field. There is no time at which I can concede when my opponent's top card will be revieled but my hand has not.
I don't think this applies to the OP. "Reveal cards... until.." by the english meaning of the words is precisely to reveal one then another, then a third, etc. To argue that all the cards are, in the eyes of the rules, revealed simultaneously, seems quite the contrarian stance. "Reveal a card from the top of your library, and if it doesn't have the chosen name, repeat this process" would not work as the top card does not change, though more complicated wordings, or exiling as part of the itterative process instead of all at once, could achieve this.
Still, I think the intuitive scenario is the required one. First, the top card is revealed. Then, if it is not the named card, the top two cards are revealed. Then, if the named card is not revealed, the top three, and so on until the named card appears.
If this is not the required execution of the instructions then what prevents the caster from from picking an arbitrary number of cards off the top of the deck and revealing them all at once in search of the named card? Say they have triskaidekaphobia or death's shadow in play.
Under the answer I gave in another thread, whether you can concede in the scenario in comment 1 depends on whether "[r]eveal[ing] cards ... until you reveal" a card with the chosen name is a simultaneous action (see my comments 2 and 4 in that thread). If it is, then as far as the game is concerned and within the meaning of C.R. 104.3a, there would be no "time" between the beginning of revealing those cards and finding (or not) a card with the chosen name.
I think the word "until" in the spoils of the vault instructions strongly indicates that time is passing as the cards are revealed.
While Eternal Witness triggers during the resolution of Tooth and Nail, the triggered ability is not placed on the stack until after Tooth and Nail is done resolving. That's when it's target is chosen, when it's place on the stack, not when it triggers.
While my opponent is looking at the top four cards I can tell that those cards are the top four and not any other 4. I think it should follow, then, that among those 4 I could also tell which of them is the top, 2nd down, etc. Why not?
If I can...
If the actions are simultaneous the game goes from the top 4 cards being looked at in one moment and the next moment one card is exiled with the other three on the bottom of the library. It this case it makes sense that I would not be able to tell which card was chosen, even if I knew which card was top, 2nd, 3rd, 4th during the looking.
If the actions are sequential, though, and there is a moment where the exiled card has been chosen and the other 3 are still on top of the library, what prevents me from keep track of which of the 4 cards are the 3 cards that remain?
No. Once it attacks exerted the ability is independent of the source. You would have to act before your opponent attacked, before you knew if they were going to exert or not.
No, I disagree. A conversation and discussion about the current game state, likely future game states, who needs it more, and any number of other considerations are all possible and legal. The bright and clear line gets crossed when you and your opponent conspire to determine the winner by mutual deferment to a chance event.
Speaking of logical conclusions, though, the line of this thread is only remotely a discussion in game three, time called, neither player can afford a draw scenarios. Consider if these methods were instead used to determine match wins for game one, round one, of a GP. Instead of playing out their games say half the matches decided to do land/non-land or some other method and go get more breakfast. What if they all did? That's no longer a magic tournament. That's a problem.
It comes down to how we interpret "outside-the-game method." If you are using the components of the game, the objects in game, actions you take during the game, etc. and attribute to them context, abilities, consequences that they do not and should not have within that game of magic, then those abilities, consequences, etc., that you and your opponent have agreed to imbue them with, are outside-the-game. The fact that drawing and revealing a land/non-land is something that can happen legally within the context of a game is not relevant. The ramifications you have assigned to that action are not part of the game of magic.
If both players were determined to do this, I expect it would be hard for a judge. Maybe they really do think that the likely outcome of the rest of the game would hinge on weather or not a player draws a land on turn 5 of extra turns.
At the same time, though, if one player made such a proposition, unsolicited, to me, and I called a judge claiming that my opponent had proposed to determine the result of the match illegally, could a Judge possibly find no violation? I'm not sure that any amount of "but this is technically within the letter of the rules" would convince me that my opponent's proposition, by any of these methods, was something other than offering to randomly determine the result of the match.
This forum is for specific rules questions. The answers are supposed to be limited to only that.
The scope of your questions may be too broad to be effectively answered in this forum.
Also here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/established-legacy/combo/181899-manaless-dredge
Nether Shadow and other creatures can enter play from the graveyard.
Stinkweed Imp and other cards with the "Dredge" mechanic put cards into the graveyard.
Flayer of the Hatebound kills the opponent without attacking.
02.51. Dredge
702.51a Dredge is a static ability that functions only while the card with dredge is in a player’s graveyard. “Dredge N” means “As long as you have at least N cards in your library, if you would draw a card, you may instead put N cards from the top of your library into your graveyard and return this card from your graveyard to your hand.”
702.51b A player with fewer cards in his or her library than the number required by a dredge ability can’t put any of them into his or her graveyard this way.
I don't think this applies to the OP. "Reveal cards... until.." by the english meaning of the words is precisely to reveal one then another, then a third, etc. To argue that all the cards are, in the eyes of the rules, revealed simultaneously, seems quite the contrarian stance. "Reveal a card from the top of your library, and if it doesn't have the chosen name, repeat this process" would not work as the top card does not change, though more complicated wordings, or exiling as part of the itterative process instead of all at once, could achieve this.
Still, I think the intuitive scenario is the required one. First, the top card is revealed. Then, if it is not the named card, the top two cards are revealed. Then, if the named card is not revealed, the top three, and so on until the named card appears.
If this is not the required execution of the instructions then what prevents the caster from from picking an arbitrary number of cards off the top of the deck and revealing them all at once in search of the named card? Say they have triskaidekaphobia or death's shadow in play.
Trying at a guess: my opponent casts show and tell. My opponent an I each select a card from hand to place into play. I have selected spirit of the labyrinth and hold swords to plowshares to answer a potential griselbrand. My opponent revels emrakul, the aeons torn instead and i try to concede without revealing my spirit.
I think the word "until" in the spoils of the vault instructions strongly indicates that time is passing as the cards are revealed.